DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 20, 2025, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Appreciate your time and response.
I have not filed my defence yet only the AOS. I am waiting for
Horizon to respond to my request for information under SAR which
they may or may not respond to, in time.
#Post#: 99087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: b789
Date: November 20, 2025, 9:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What’s the point of not submitting the defence until after you
receive the SAR result? The whole loin of that defence is that
they have not complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is no cause of
action in their PoC.
If you wait for the SAR, they will try and say that you had all
the necessary details before the defence was filed. The whole
point is to get this struck out.
The PoC MUST give enough information for the defendant to know
the details. They have to at least let you know the reason for
the claim. Imagine that the first you know about this is the
actual PoC. How on earth could you know enough detail about why
they are making the claim?
The PoC in Gladstones claim do not even mention the reason. They
just claim you owe money because the driver breached a contract.
What exact term of this contract did the driver breached a? It
doesn’t say. That’s the failure to comply with the CPR.
If his ever reaches the point where you must provide a witness
statement, then you would use any evidence they provide in their
witness statement. You don’t do their job for them by assisting
them to cover their failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
#Post#: 99350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: November 22, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you once again for that clarification. I have submitted
the defence using the wording provided. Lets see what happens
next.
#Post#: 123674--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco /Gladstones
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: July 3, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I have now received the legal pack from Gladstones. I
would appreciate, if anyone can review my response.
#Post#: 123676--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: July 3, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the link to the legal pack:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W90CGtuZ0JylVE1mxaoeHBHYRgnncWz0/view?usp=drive_link
#Post#: 123677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: July 3, 2026, 8:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the County Court at Romford
Claim No:xxxxxxxxxxx
Between:
HORIZON PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)
–and–
XXXXX (Defendant)
Introduction
1. I, XXXXX, being the Defendant in this matter, make this
statement in response to the Witness Statement of Deanne Nevers
dated 1st July 2026. The facts stated herein are within my own
knowledge except where otherwise indicated.
2. I respectfully request that the Court dismiss this claim in
its entirety. The Claimant is attempting to enforce an unfair,
disproportionate parking charge alongside artificially inflated,
legally unrecoverable administrative fees.
### 1. Fundamental Lack of Standing and Authority
3. In Paragraph 3 of her statement, the Claimant’s witness
explicitly admits that the Claimant is *not authorised to
disclose the landowner agreement* governing the site at Tesco
Leyton. The Claimant relies entirely on assertions of a valid
contract.
4. The Claimant misapplies One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw
[2021]. In Wilshaw, the explicit lack of authority was an issue
raised late by a District Judge sua sponte (of his own motion)
without giving the parking operator a fair chance to respond. In
the present case, the Defendant explicitly challenges the
Claimant's strict legal capacity and standing to issue and
litigate claims in its own name at this specific location.
5. A commercial agreement must convey the specific right to
assign a debt and initiate legal proceedings in the operator’s
name. By actively withholding the contract under the guise of
"commercial sensitivity", the Claimant fails to discharge its
burden of proof to demonstrate it possesses the explicit
corporate locus standi required to bring this claim.
### 2. Disproportionate and Unfair Contractual Terms
6. The Claimant asserts that the vehicle exceeded the 1-hour
maximum stay limit by 37 minutes on 14/09/2024. However, under
Section 62 of the *Consumer Rights Act 2015*, a contractual term
is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it
causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights to the
detriment of the consumer.
7. The consumer, entering a busy retail supermarket car park
(Tesco Leyton), is subjected to automated ANPR tracking from the
exact split-second of entry to the exit boundary. This
completely fails to factor in standard operational realities,
such as:
* Time spent navigating traffic within the car park to locate
an available space.
* Time spent queuing to exit the site back onto a busy main
road (825 High Road, Leyton).
8. Demanding a severe financial penalty for a minor deviation
within a busy commercial environment creates a gross imbalance
under Section 62, rendering the core restriction unfair and
unenforceable.
### 3. Artificial Inflation of the Claim (Abuse of Process)
9. In their Schedule of Losses, the Claimant seeks a judgment
sum that includes a baseline parking charge of £70.00, an
additional £10.00 administrative charge, and a further claim of
*£70.00 for "additional costs"*.
10. This secondary £70.00 charge is a transparent attempt at
double recovery and an abuse of civil court process. The
baseline operational costs of managing a parking enforcement
business—including debt letters and standard administrative
processing—are already factored directly into the primary £70.00
charge itself.
11. The Claimant’s own exhibited case law, One Parking Solution
Ltd v Wilshaw [2021], extensively details instances where courts
have heavily scrutinized and struck out parking claims where
arbitrary debt collection and administrative markups were tacked
onto the principal sum. The inclusion of these completely
unparticularised "additional costs" serves only to distort the
small claims system and artificially inflate the claim value.
### 4. Flawed Witness Evidence
12. The witness statement submitted by Deanne Nevers is highly
formulaic, generic, and entirely transactional. Ms. Nevers is an
employee of a professional legal services firm based in
Warrington, miles away from the site. She possesses zero
personal, first-hand knowledge of the physical environment,
localized traffic patterns, or the specific visibility/obscurity
of the signage layout at the Tesco Leyton site on the date of
the alleged breach.
13. Her statement consists almost entirely of generic legal
arguments and aggressive template assertions dismissing the
Defendant's case as "internet-sourced". It fails to establish
any credible, direct factual evidence regarding the specific
parking event.
### Conclusion & Order Sought
14. The Claimant has failed to provide a copy of its chain of
authority to litigate, relies on unfair contractual terms that
breach consumer protection law, and has actively abused the
court process by tacking on duplicate, fabricated administrative
fees to punish a motorist.
15. I respectfully invite the Court to:
* *Dismiss the claim* in its entirety.
* *Strike out the additional £70.00 cost element* as an
impermissible double recovery.
* Award the Defendant appropriate fixed travel and loss of time
expenses for attending the hearing listed on 17th July 2026.
### Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be
brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
*Signed:*
............................................................
Name: XXXXXX
Date: 1st July 2026
#Post#: 123678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 3, 2026, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please amend the permissions so that we can view this “legal
pack”.
#Post#: 123685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: ashthemash
Date: July 3, 2026, 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies, i have updated the access setting, hopefully should
be editable.
#Post#: 123686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 3, 2026, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s fine, I don’t need to edit but couldn’t read before, now
it’s OK.
#Post#: 123687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Legal claim received for Parking in Tesco
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 3, 2026, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So that’s the claimant’s Witness Statement.
You should have received a letter from your local court - the
one you nominated on your N180 form - with dates of hearing,
dates by which the claimant has to pay the court fee, dates by
which both parties have to submit Witness Statements.
I don’t think you’ve posted this letter.
So you are now filing your WS in response to theirs.
It reads more like a defence, although yours was previously a
boilerplate/template defence.
But it probably ticks the boxes I guess. It’s too much about the
process and their failings than it is about your story.
Is that a correct summary, and do you have any information on
the other dates that are important here?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page